@aldiuk Victory over Parking Eye!!!

[Steve_Batman]

Hi

 

I recently received a PCN from Parking Eye for exceeding the allowed parking time at Aldi. After reading several threads regarding the unfairness of the level of charges, and the questions over the legality I decided to appeal using one of the template letters available at various websites.

 

Without including the full letter, the key points of the appeal were:

 

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.

b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.

c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

f). This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice with as much merit as the publicly-derided £100 taken unlawfully from customers by a dingy Blackpool Hotel.

 

In addition to this I researched the POPLA appeals process & there are several published suggestions on the internet on how to win at this stage.

 

However, much to my delight I received a reply from Parking Eye within a fortnight advising that they had cancelled the charge & that no outstanding payment is due.

 

So..... before you panic & consider paying this, please do your research and use the templates that are available to you. Do not ignore the letters (this used to be the advice) but make it clear that you will contest this & fight them all the way to court if necessary. I believe that they will then look for easier targets as many articles on this subject confirm.

 

If it is this easy to win then it proves that the Parking Firms do not have a case and if they will so easily drop it then it should be very easy to win at the next stage, i.e. POPLA.

 

Parking Eye claim on their website that they have won many cases at court, however many people believe that these are situations where people have ignored their letters. I would urge you to use the material that is readily available in the form of templates, some people have gone to a great deal of trouble to help consumers in producing these and the do work!!!!

[BankFodder]

Yes we believe that Parking Eye are being deceptive about their courtroom victories. We believe that most - and maybe all of them are default judgments.

We invite Parking Eye to demonstrate that this is untrue and we will then be very pleased to put the record straight for them

[f16]

You've posted this in Local Authority Parking.

 

Thread needs moving

[dx100uk]

moved

 

 

dx

[f16]

Yes we believe that Parking Eye are being deceptive about their courtroom victories. We believe that most - and maybe all of them are default judgments.

We invite Parking Eye to demonstrate that this is untrue and we will then be very pleased to put the record straight for them

 

BankFodder. ......... parking eye would have to "grow a pair" first

 

DX. Cheers

[DBC]

On their website Parking Eye boast about their so-called famous "test case" victory in Cambridge. What they forget to say is that the case is going to appeal later this month . Not only do they fail to mention this on their website, several of their legal reps have also failed to mention it in court , as highlighted by a recent Parking Prankster blog:-

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/parkingeye-called-to-task-in-stockport.html

 

At no point during the meeting or the hearing did the barrister mention that the Beavis case was being appealed. This is a serious breach of the solicitor's code of conduct, which requires that all relevant information, even if not helpful to the solicitor's side of the case is brought to the attention of the court. This is especially relevant if the other side is not professionally represented.

[ericsbrother]

I do not believe that an epidemic of common sense has broken out at PE but they are doing this for economic reasons. They have to pay money for appeals to go to POPLA where they generally lose a well constructed appeal and it also takes time administering this. If they are successful in PE v Beavis they will be back with a vengeance and I doubt if POPLA will have any relevance for them. There are moves afoot to get the appeal costs added to the parking charge bill and I'm certain they will do that in any case on the back of the Proserve judgement unless they are explicitly told they cant.