Jump to content


Parking Eye Lose Three in a Day.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3760 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Posted by Bargepole over on MSE.

 

 

 

Case #1: 3JD00565 at Colchester County Court (ParkingEye v Rogers)

 

This had been adjourned from a previous hearing, to allow PE to produce their landowner contract. The defendant also produced photographs, showing that there was no signage at the entrance to the car park, and others were obscured. PE had produced their own photos, showing a full set of signage, which the LPC Law rep tried to argue had been taken at around the same time. However, in the background of PE’s photos were images of people in shorts, and shop signs saying “Summer Sale”. As the event occurred last November, this seemed highly unlikely. The Judge dismissed the claim on the basis of no signage = no contract.

 

Cases #2 & #3: 3QT62681 and 3QT62156 at Southampton County Court (ParkingEye v Lemon, and PE v unnamed defendant)

 

The Judge decided to hear two cases simultaneously, from the same car park, and with identical facts.

 

In the first defendant’s own words: “We won! The solicitor for ParkingEye produced a contract which was dated Feb 2013 (our parking overstay was Oct. 2012) and the judge was not amused that it hadn't been included in either his or our bundles. He also refused the claim because the wording of the sign was ambiguous.

 

Very many thanks for all your help and advice. If I can ever do anything to help, I'll be only too pleased. I have been absolutely disgusted with what I have discovered about ParkingEye Ltd.

 

We will be contacting our local paper and I will probably write to the Daily Mail and The Telegraph.

 

I'm also going to contact Trading Standards and the DVLA about the fact that PE have taken money wrongly (is illegally too strong a word?) for over a year in The Range car park here.”

 

The good thing about all these, is that the Defendants were sufficiently well briefed, and confident enough to conduct their own defences against the LPC Law advocates. A bad day at the office for Rachel, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Case #1: 3JD00565 at Colchester county court (parkingeye v Rogers)

 

This had been adjourned from a previous hearing, to allow PE to produce their landowner contract. The defendant also produced photographs, showing that there was no signage at the entrance to the car park, and others were obscured. PE had produced their own photos, showing a full set of signage, which the LPC Law rep tried to argue had been taken at around the same time. However, in the background of PE’s photos were images of people in shorts, and shop signs saying “Summer Sale”. As the event occurred last November, this seemed highly unlikely. The Judge dismissed the claim on the basis of no signage = no contract.

 

 

Surely this was an attempt to mislead the court by PE. Why are the courts not doing something about this ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance that we could have copies of the documents involved in this. - Claims, defences and judgments?

Also I would like very much to talk to the defendants involved to get a sense of how it all developed.

 

Maybe you could email us on our admin address.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

which is

 

[email protected] (no spaces)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion only

 

I wonder if PE are issuing court papers with the hope that quite a few people are baulking at the thought of going to court so pay up

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion only

 

I wonder if PE are issuing court papers with the hope that quite a few people are baulking at the thought of going to court so pay up

 

If they are abusing the court process in this way, then something does indeed need to be done.

 

Almost certainly people will panic if they receive a court claim through the post !

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think PE are particularly worried if they lose the odd court case.As has been stated above, if enough people just cave in and pay when they receive court papers they will still be quids in. In fact even if PE win a court case it costs them more on court and legal fees then they get back from the motorist.So they are banking on their victims being so frightened by the thought of court they they will just pay up. What a very cynical way to run a business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how debt purchasers work too, and on a much grander scale. Huge profits on the back of scaring innocent people into thinking something unspeakably terrible will befall them unless they cave in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are banking on their victims being so frightened by the thought of court they they will just pay up. What a very cynical way to run a business.

 

It is also an abuse of the court system !!

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that barratry was abolished.

 

For those, like me, who were ignorant of this ....

 

In England and Wales the common law offence of being a common barrator was abolished by section 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

 

Being a common barrator was an offence under the common law of England. It was classified as a misdemeanour. It consisted of "persistently stirring up quarrels in the Courts or out of them". It is doubtful whether in the ordinary way persons charged with commission of this offence were dealt with by indictment.[3]

 

In 1966 the Law Commission recommended that this offence be abolished.[4] They said that there had been no indictments for this offence for "many years" and that, as an indictable misdemeanour, it was "wholly obsolete".[3] Their recommendation was implemented by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)#England_and_Wales

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Case 1 actually made me laugh out loud :-D

 

Parking Eye you made my day!

 

The judge actually knew the true nature of a loss. That's why only £15 was awarded. Even after that judgement PE are still ploughing on with those stupid "loss" figures which are not actual losses but their day-to-day running expenses and costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

every person who folds when they receive the court papers earns PE another £75 for court fees and solicitors fee they havent paid at that point.

If you feel like throwing the towel in at least reply to the court paperwork and get them to pay the allocation fee before settling. make them do something to work for their ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, if you are reading this you know this already but the hundreds of other who dont read here will never know the extent of the con.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some potentially fascinating figures would be revealed if only the full information could be found out -

 

Number of 'tickets' issued.

 

% paid before issue of Court papers

 

Numbers of Court papers issued (this can be obtained via SAR)

 

% of Court applications settled by payment before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications withdrawn before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications won by to PE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some potentially fascinating figures would be revealed if only the full information could be found out -

 

Number of 'tickets' issued.

 

% paid before issue of Court papers

 

Numbers of Court papers issued (this can be obtained via SAR)

 

% of Court applications settled by payment before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications withdrawn before a Hearing

 

% of Court applications won by to PE

 

 

I wish that were the case. A SAR can only be requested for your information, not company info that is likely to be commercially sensitive.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you cant get the info via a SAR, you need to go for FOI request to HMCTS. They may say that it will take too long and cost too much to answer the questions so phrase them in a way that enables the info to be collated with the least effort.

Therefore you can ask how many claims issued by parking co's, how many satisfied before hearing, how many withdrawn or not proceeded with and how many found for the apellant/defendant. Might have to specify the names of parking co's or say how many claims from BPA members to avoid commercail confidentiality. Alternatively, get your MP to ask the minister for justice in a written request or parliamentary question. Some MP's are rather keen on this sort of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See :FOI/84035

July 2013

which used:

  • How many county court small claims have been initiated from British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme members from 01/10/2012 to 30/06/2013.

 

  • Could you break down per company for the dates above

You could try adding:

  • How many of these claims have been abandoned or successfully defended.

which has produced interesting figures in the past when requested against individual companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but this whole court fiasco could be avoided if every one who obtains one of these invoices in England and Wales goes through the appeals process including POPLA on the basis of Genuine Pre Estmate of Loss, Contrctual agreement and signage. PE have an almost unblemished record at POPLA when it comes to Genuine pre estimate of loss. On the subject of signage, I have recently been aware of two examples wher the DVLA has become involved and upheld complaints regarding inadequate entry signage (pictures should be taken) depite the fact that the BPA has rejected similar complaints. (No surprises there then)

 

My basis for this approach is that I fully understand that many people do not want to face a court and of course PE and others are fully aware of this fact which encourages them to issue claims through Northampton in the knowledge that a lareg proportion of people will simply pay up.

Therfore should we not be doing more to deprive PE the opportunity of frightening people into paying by providing written appeals and discouraging people from ignoring.

Please note non of the above applies in Scotland.

Just look at PE's POPLA track record.

Post number

Operator

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

18

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

68

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

77

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

93

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

121

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

138

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

144

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

149

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

160

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

166

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

177

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

181a

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

181b

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

182

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

193

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

194

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

199

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

210

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

212

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

235

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

240

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

243

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

254a

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

254b

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

255

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

262

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

263

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

272

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

288

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

291

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

298

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

299

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

317

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

321

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

347

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

332

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

348

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

359

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

377

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

390

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss.

379

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

434

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

435a

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

523

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

535

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

542

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

547

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

550

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

561

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

567

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

568

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

571

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

572

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

573

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

590

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

598

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

609

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

612

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

613

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

614

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

619

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

624

ParkingEye

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

8 Dec

631

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

9 Dec

637

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

9 Dec

638

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

9 Dec

639

ParkingEye

Not genuine pre-estimate of loss

 

With more to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Parking Prankster reckons that 67 POPLA decisions going against PE on GPOL. But still the PPC persists on churning out the same old rubbish that erection of signs and cameras and staff wages etc. can be counted as "losses".

 

Just a thought, as they have been told time after time by POPLA that they can't make those claims, does the fact of them persisting in this charade amount to claiming money under false pretenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Parking Prankster reckons that 67 POPLA decisions going against PE on GPOL. But still the PPC persists on churning out the same old rubbish that erection of signs and cameras and staff wages etc. can be counted as "losses".

 

Just a thought, as they have been told time after time by POPLA that they can't make those claims, does the fact of them persisting in this charade amount to claiming money under false pretenses?

 

It will cave in at some stage, however the point I was trying to make is that by APPEALING EVERY INVOICE THROUGH POPLA using the points listed rules out the use of the court and therefore reduces the number of people who are intimidated into paying.

We also know that a number of companies are trying every trick in the book to avoid providing POPLA codes, whenever this is picked up a complaint should be made to the DVLA and of course members of parliament as they are deliberately breaching the regulations (POFA) begged for by the BPA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...