parking eye threat with county court action for serving soldier ** SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME **

[queensclose]

parking eye have sent this to a female serving soldier who who has returned home for christmas to their letters. basis of it several people have access to the vehicle with her permission. several people have access to the vehicle. no one is admitting to driving at the time. looking at the letter i can not see what the breach was. her problem is 2 days after Christmas she will return to her regiment and not return home until early march which is worrying her that they will get a judgement by default

 

http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img120_zps56f773ba.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

 

http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img119_zpsce9716c0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1

 

http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img118_zps2932771b.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2

 

http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img121_zps503287dc.jpg.html?sort=3&o=3

[queensclose]

http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img121_zps503287dc.jpg.html?filters[user]=117827552&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0&src=wap

 

http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x325/queensclose/Mobile%20Uploads/img120_zps56f773ba.jpg?t=1387806254

 

 

http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x325/queensclose/Mobile%20Uploads/img119_zpsce9716c0.jpg?t=1387806195

 

http://s1176.photobucket.com/user/queensclose/media/Mobile%20Uploads/img118_zps2932771b.jpg.html?filters[user]=117827552&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=3&src=wap

[ericsbrother]

She could respond pointing out that she was serving elsewhere at the time but that wont interest them. They are chasing her as the keeper of the vehicle and they are entitled to under certain circumstances. Her best bet is to write to PE and point this out and say that she would rather appeal to POPLA than force PE to pay the cost of her air fare back to the UK for a court hearing and suffer the appaling publicity that would engender when they lose (yup, if they do want court, phone the "Sun" and give them a sob story and it will get them going). Also give PE her BFPO number for any correspondence so they know that it isnt just an made up excuse.

In reality, if PE do go for it the county court would do a paper hearing if so chosen so no-one has to attend and the judge makes a decision and lets the parties know afterwards. The minus side of this is PE will have reams and reams of irrelevant paperwork and often the judge will prefer one side's evidence over the other rather than actually reading everything as the demeanour of the parties involved do make a difference. In other words, some judges like listenening to lawyers waffle on with minor points of law and others hate it so the paper hearing removes that particular bias towards the bullied.

So, write to PE telling them that no responses made in time because overseas and would like POPLA reference to avoid court as she has been disadvantaged due to her service already. She doesnt know who the driver was at the time and no-one will help her in this. To ensure that Sch4 of the PoFA is appropriate could PE send a certified true copy of the contract with the landowner so she can then consider whether there is an obligation in law on her part for any breach of contract claim.

[queensclose]

************************ won*************************************

 

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN

0845 207 7700

[email protected]

http://www.popla.org.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

09 April 2014

 

 

 

Reference XXXXXXXX

always quote in any communication with POPLA

 

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXXX(Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

 

 

 

 

 

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxx1 arising out

of the presence at Meridian West Street/Bulbeck Road, Havant, on xx

xxxxxxxx 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

 

 

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has

determined that the appeal be allowed

 

 

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

 

 

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

 

It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for failing to

purchase a valid parking ticket. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now

due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

 

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-

estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.

 

The signage produced seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a

breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-

estimate of loss.

 

The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of

Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any parking

charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any charge which

is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is

for the Operator to address it.

 

The Operator has also submitted that its charges have been held to be enforceable

in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify

this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary

depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a

parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does

not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of the loss caused in every car park.

 

The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

Accordingly, as the Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-

estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or

evidence in order to tip the balance in its favour.

 

In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this charge in a

genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to simply

list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case.

 

Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence

to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

 

I need not decide on any other issues.

 

XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Assessor

[Bazooka Boo]

Excellent well done, typical PE con trick....great news.

[Guest]

that seems to be the general issue? private contractual 'genuine loss' to prove and satisfy. ie none re the amount they try to claim. nice one queensclose.

[renegadeimp]

PE really need bringing before the court in a proper legal case. They are abusing the court system by using the courts as a form of debt collection, where no debt actually exists.

[Guest]

they claim under 'contract', but generally a claim re breach of contract requires the breach and subsequent loss (damages) under the contract relevant to the breach to be justified. what 'loss' do they suffer? that demands 100 odd quid? do they maintain the car park that they conduct surveillance on? or is that for the landowner?

[queensclose]

they are a business full stop. TO MAKE PROFIT. not recoup their loses. they set the charge at £100 to try to avoid disclosing their pre-estimate loses. but they still need address the question if asked. three times i asked and each time i got a template letter back saying either name the driver or pay within 14 days. not one question was answered.

if they pre-estimate they lost £100 by not buying a .20p ticket. they to explain how they afford lose £40 if we had taken them up on the £40 discount if paid within 14 days. if the £100 is the loss how can you discount it.

 

its ok they say we have enforced the charges successful in the county courts. but how many of them where not defended.

 

even if it was defended and parking eye won. was any of them concerning this car park. if none. then that information is irrelevant to this charge.

 

if the breakdown includes a percentage to the landowner. how did their lose occur. for example the shops are paying the landowner rent. did one of them withhold rent because we didn't pay .20p. my reckoning they earn £20 from each one that paid. it cant be for the upkeep of the carpark because all the other drivers paid .20p

i asked them to supply a copy of the contract they have with the landowner giving the authority to issue charges and collect them. apparently because they are a business they dont have to show it because it could be used by the competition. the contract is to recover loses and not make a profit. so whats in the contract shouldn't make any difference and in any case. they are the ones claiming we owe the money so have to prove they have the right to claim it.

 

i like to thank POPLA for seeing parking eye as they are. and parking eye need to grow up and and run the business as a business and use some common sense

[Guest]

don't get my post wrong, am with you queens, seems is re profit alone. there is no 100 or even 40 loss. thats what i was getting at. they don't even maintain the car park, is for the landowner, all parking eye etc do is put up some cameras.

as you say, well done re popla for seeing through things.

[queensclose]

don't get my post wrong, am with you queens, seems is re profit alone. there is no 100 or even 40 loss. thats what i was getting at. they don't even maintain the car park, is for the landowner, all parking eye etc do is put up some cameras.

as you say, well done re popla for seeing through things.

 

i know what your saying.. i meant even the landowner cannot have a loss for maintaining the car park ie new tarmac because its all in with the shops paying rent. motorist have always been a cash cow. and it amazes me how many people pay the charge

[Guest]

i know what your saying.. i meant even the landowner cannot have a loss for maintaining the car park ie new tarmac because its all in with the shops paying rent. motorist have always been a cash cow. and it amazes me how many people pay the charge

 

i see what you mean , re yr post #9 re the contract etc re the landowner.