ParkingEye signage

[reallymadwoman]

Since they now seem to know exactly who I am I see no point in continuing to keep my fight against this particular 'company' under wraps,

though of course I may not always reveal all details in advance ...

 

For those who haven't seen my previous posts re this particular parking company, some background is that

I live in an apartment, the car park for which can only be accessed by crossing an Aldi car park for which we have a right of way.

 

 

The Aldi car park is of course managed by PE who have ANPR cameras pointed at the entrance/exit, but nowhere else.

This means of course that once a vehicle has entered the car park,

PE have no idea whether it parks there or in our car park and what's more, they don't give a monkeys!

 

In 5 years this household and our visitors alone have had well over 100 parking charge notices.

Until October 2012 they were just ignored, but since then I've appealed every single one.

 

 

Up until a couple of months ago PE just cancelled them - only one slipped through the net and got sent to POPLA

and that one was cancelled too as soon as they knew about it.

 

To save anyone doing the maths 100 'fines' per household x the number of households in the block

= approximately £100,000 so no prizes for guessing why PE, despite knowing about the problem for 5 years, have done nothing to resolve it.

 

In the last couple of months PE have upped the ante.

They no longer allow me to do appeals on behalf of my guests - totally contrary to BPA and POPLA rules -

and far from cancelling every charge, they're now disputing every one.

 

 

With less than a week to go before the next POPLA decision is due, they suddenly submitted a pile of junk they called evidence.

Not only that, we have today received yet another charge for the same vehicle.

 

 

The final straw was having to apologise to the other half's ex because I told her I would deal with PE

(one of their sons had used her vehicle to visit - had we not had a civilized relationship,

the repercussions of this 'ticket' could have been horrendous)

who then insisted on directing all correspondence about the appeal to her.

 

prior to the POPLA evidence thing, I had submitted complaints to DVLA, BPA and Aldi with no holds barred.

Despite the apparent connection, there's no way the complaints could have been received

and communicated to PE in time for them to put their bundle together, it is just coincidence.

 

 

I am not expecting anything from BPA, PE are far too big to have any action taken against them by the association they fund,

I'm expecting DVLA to initially refer my complaint to BPA at which point I will involve my MP,

but I'm hoping Aldi at least will finally see sense over this.

 

 

It wouldn't be difficult to solve my issue and stop their car park being horribly abused by all and sundry

- a simple count of the number of cars parked their when the store isn't even open would be a clue to how effective PE's current methods are,

though of course the last thing PE want is for no one to abuse the car park ...

 

currently there are outstanding complaints to anyone I can think of plus 3 outstanding POPLA appeals,

one of which is due to be decided this week, and 5 outstanding appeals to PE which I may or may not get a response to any time soon.

Progress will be posted to this thread, as will anything I think will help anyone else once it's done it's job for me.

Hopefully.

 

Here's Parking Prankster's thoughts on the subject http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/is-anpr-always-fit-for-purpose.html

[silverfox1961]

Thank you RMW for posting this thread. I have known about your predicament for some time now and finally the rest of the world can see just what pillocks Parking Eye are.

 

I recall mentioning in the past that the simplest solution would be for PE to move the camera to a position where it can see only the customer car park. Too simple for their minds to get around?

 

I wouldn't wait for your complaints to be resolved and contact your MP but I would get your MEP involved too. Make them earn the massive amounts they get.

 

While contacting the press may not be what you want, the Daily Hate has run an excellent campaign. Things would happen once PE were shamed in the press.

 

I know PE have a 'whitelist' but that is only good for the residents and offer no help for visitors so another waste of time there.

[reallymadwoman]

Thank you RMW for posting this thread. I have known about your predicament for some time now and finally the rest of the world can see just what pillocks Parking Eye are.

 

I recall mentioning in the past that the simplest solution would be for PE to move the camera to a position where it can see only the customer car park. Too simple for their minds to get around? Unfortunately this wouldn't work as there's only one entrance and we have to use it. A second camera covering the entrance to our car park might work, but even better would be a barrier. Give genuine Aldi customers tokens when they go through the tills, give residents some sort of pass and a regularly topped up supply of the same tokens and problem solved. Except of course how would PE make any money from that?

 

I wouldn't wait for your complaints to be resolved and contact your MP but I would get your MEP involved too. Make them earn the massive amounts they get.

 

While contacting the press may not be what you want, the Daily Hate has run an excellent campaign. Things would happen once PE were shamed in the press.

 

I know PE have a 'whitelist' but that is only good for the residents and offer no help for visitors so another waste of time there.

 

The one valuable bit of evidence I have recently obtained, in writing, by their own fair hand, is that PE apparently don't always check the white list until after they've received an appeal.

[reallymadwoman]

A potentially very interesting case http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1422.html&query=title+(+Kettel+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+bloomfold+)&method=boolean - Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) (25 May 2012)

 

To save people wading through without knowing if it's relevant to them, the claimants had allocated parking spaces which the landlord wanted to change so he could develop the land. The new parking spaces were equally convenient so the claimants wouldn't be any worse off BUT the judge found that since the landlord wanted to do something FOR PROFIT which he wouldn't otherwise be entitled to do, they were entitled to damages for nuisance which amount in this case to around £65k each.

 

 

PE could be found to be effectively preventing me/my visitors from parking where we are entitled to do due to fear of receiving a £70 charge. If this amounted to nuisance (and I don't doubt that it does, neither do a few people who should know) then the value of my claim would be the difference in value between a property with parking/visitors parking and an identical one without plus a sum to reflect the inconvenience of doing all those appeals and the embarassment I've been caused and any direct costs such as postage etc.

It so happens that there is an almost identical development very nearby which has no parking for residents or visitors.

 

Properties in that development are on average 25% cheaper than in this development. 25% of the value of this property is not far off the figure given in Kettel. I had previously discounted proceedings because of the risk of costs and because I know I couldn't do it myself, however that was based on an assumption that damages would be fairly minimal and it was the injunction I was after ...

Edited August 20, 2014 by citizenB

[ericsbrother]

Write to them to warn them that they are stupid in the extreme and that any further demand will be treated as harassment and a civil claim against them will be launched. There is a thread on this forum from someone who had similar problems with demands for parking in own space so sued and won. Also got an order to desist from further harassment upon pain of contempt of court penalites.

Bill them for you time at £18ph LiP costs plus the postage costs.

[ericsbrother]

In the meanwhile get all of your friends to come and park in your development on the same day for more than the time that would trigger a PE demand and then hit them with a bulk response as proof of the harassment. All of the replies to the PE demand should be put in the same envelope and if you know a tame solicitor get a swear done to say that they were visiting you and suffering distress due to PE's failure to identify the difference beween the housing development and a supermarket car park. It also raises the question as to whether PE has the right to collect the information about the visitors or residents there under their DPA registration. Misuse of data for sure.

[ploddertom]

I fail to see where they can prove you have parked as entrance/exit cameras only record time of entry and/or exit and not proof of parking.

[reallymadwoman]

I fail to see where they can prove you have parked as entrance/exit cameras only record time of entry and/or exit and not proof of parking.

 

They can't BUT they still insist that the burden of proof is actually on the motorist to prove that they weren't parked in Aldi's car park even though logically, how would that even be possible?

[reallymadwoman]

In the meanwhile get all of your friends to come and park in your development on the same day for more than the time that would trigger a PE demand and then hit them with a bulk response as proof of the harassment. All of the replies to the PE demand should be put in the same envelope and if you know a tame solicitor get a swear done to say that they were visiting you and suffering distress due to PE's failure to identify the difference beween the housing development and a supermarket car park. It also raises the question as to whether PE has the right to collect the information about the visitors or residents there under their DPA registration. Misuse of data for sure.

Though attractive, the difficulty with this is that there aren't unlimited visitor spaces so once they have the requisite number of vehicles who could be genuinely occupying visitor spaces, everyone else is simply proving that, if they parked, they must have parked somewhere they shouldn't.

 

PE are also very well aware that they've overstepped the mark beyond any sense of reasonable now but I would like to let the various regulatory bodies do their stuff before going any further - since any claim would include PE's totally unreasonable response to the problem, the onus is doubly on me to comply with the spirit of pre-action protocols as well as the letter and be beyond any hint of criticism.

[Meekyou]

You've told them enough times, so I would now leave the next one, except maybe one polite letter simply "I refer you to previous PCN's issued by PE against this vehicle at this location" and let them take you to court - then counter claim against them for Harassment - take copies of all the past PCN's, appeals, cancellations, POPLA appeals & correspondence etc - present that to the Court and say you've advised them enough times, they accepted it enough times, yet they continue to issue PCNs harass you for money, and then apply for a Court Order to stop them from contacting you etc

[reallymadwoman]

All outstanding appeals to PE have suddenly been allowed.

 

Nothing heard on the POPLA appeal which was due to be completed last week.

 

On the complaint front, BPA have acknowledged but I've heard absoutely nothing from Aldi, DVLA or PE themselves. PE haven't paid my last batch of invoices (or actually, any of my invoices) either. Do courts take a dim view of someone totally ignoring all correspondence until hit with a court claim at which point they stir themselves to submit a defence?

[DragonFly1967]

Well, if ParkingLie haven't paid your invoices (that I'm assuming that you've sent them), take them to court, see how they like it

 

Send a letter before action using their own template (just for the hilarity of doing so) obviously modified to suit and then go for it. If they fail to respond to the court and you get a default judgement against them, send in the bailiffs. If it get's to that stage and you can find out when the bailiffs are attending, I'm sure there'd be a market on here if you wanted to sell tickets for the festivities

[citizenB]

All outstanding appeals to PE have suddenly been allowed.

 

Nothing heard on the POPLA appeal which was due to be completed last week.

 

On the complaint front, BPA have acknowledged but I've heard absoutely nothing from Aldi, DVLA or PE themselves. PE haven't paid my last batch of invoices (or actually, any of my invoices) either. Do courts take a dim view of someone totally ignoring all correspondence until hit with a court claim at which point they stir themselves to submit a defence?

 

I think this would be covered under "pre action conduct", RMW.

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#1.1

 

It is my understanding that the party who is shown to have been unreasonable could be subject to cost sanctions.

 

In this situation, it would appear the Parking Company have refused to engage with you, with their main aim to be the issuing of a claim or to subject you to unnecessary harassment.

[reallymadwoman]

Finally some responses. DVLA have acknowledged and are investigating, which is better than the 'we've passed your complaint to the BPA' that I expected.

 

BPA maintain that this sign [ATTACH=CONFIG]53131[/ATTACH] entitles PE to charge my visitors £70 or £100.

 

My immediate reaction is to throw the book at them, however I have a feeling arguing will get me absolutely nowhere so I shall await the latest POPLA decision then hit them with a few facts that they can't dispute. If I have to, I will send them a copy of the court transcript detailing all the errors PE have made. It will of course make absolutely no difference in the long run, but it will make me feel better.

[reallymadwoman]

By coincidence I've also received the POPLA decision on the latest appeal, which is a total cop out as they've only addressed one point - that no loss accrued to PE or Aldi, which was mentioned in passing at the end of my 8 pages of evidence, and doesn't help the overall case against PE at all. However it does underline the fact that an appeal based on genuine pre-estimate of loss stands a fair chance of winning.

 

Back to square one unless the DVLA investigation bears fruit.

[sequenci]

That sign is nonsense. There are no terms or conditions. It simply cannot be relied upon.

[reallymadwoman]

That sign is nonsense. There are no terms or conditions. It simply cannot be relied upon.

 

I know that. You know that. Anyone with more than one brain cell could work it out. Aldi, PE and BPA insist it's compliant, which leaves only two conclusions - they do not have a brain cell between them or they believe that if they say something often enough, it is true.

[ericsbrother]

the sign indicates that to park there is trespass, which means LL can sue if you have caused him damage but PE claim? Never in a sonth of mondays as Turmoil says

However, you are never going to get an answer to all of your points as to give a determination on all of them is a) not necessary in law-just have to show 1 failure and b)if they did rule an everything you could sue PE, the BPA and possibly Aldi for the misrepresentation and harassment.

[reallymadwoman]

I've asked POPLA if they can rule on other points on the basis that it will save time and effort for me, other residents and POPLA to get a definitive ruling. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

I've responded point by point to the BPA letter, with yet more photographs of the actual signs since they've ignored the first lot. I've not been absolutely polite so I'll probably edit it before posting, but it's definitely made me feel better. Again, I expect nothing to come of it given PE's prominence in the BPA.

 

I've also sent PE yet another invoice for my time, including the 6 hours I spent going through their evidence and refuting it, so it's not cheap. On the reminders I'm pointing out that failing to query any item at an early stage whilst querying it later could be taken into account on the question of costs. When they pay me I'm planning to spend every penny on a walk in the park to celebrate - in other words, I'm not holding my breath!

 

Unfortunately as they've now allowed all recent appeals I'm waiting for them to issue another one so I can really get annoyed, but the ***** seem to have finally got the message since 99.9% of my visitors share my somewhat unusual last name and no matter how long they stay they're not getting tickets. Since the final warning was 'if you issue any more tickets after (date) I will ...' it's a bit difficult to justify tearing their heads off if they're not issuing any more tickets.

[ericsbrother]

POPLA cannot create precedent law and must decide every case on its own merits. They choose to use an appeal point they have already determined upon as it is consistent and saves them a lot of time and effort. As siad, I have my beliefs as to why they prefer this particular point to others but they only have to find in your favour once.

As you have a good case for claiming for harassment against PE I wouldnt give up on your invoices completely, I'm sure that they will get it wrong again. PE will not alter its ways unless you get a court order and that would mean ignoring the procedures yourself to goad them into taking you to court. Not a good idea as the judge will hammer you for not using the POPLA route and you may win but you wont get your costs.

[reallymadwoman]

Just when you think you might be back to square one and have to wait for PE to issue another ticket to a genuine visitor they go and do something really, really stupid. Perhaps they issued a 'final demand' for a ticket that POPLA told them to cancel, though of course it would be a one off admin error, or perhaps they wrote to the registered keeper when they've been told (and acknowledged being told) who the driver was or something else which might lead one to believe that it has been done on purpose to achieve maximum annoyance since the alternative would indicate someone so incompetent they couldn't possibly hold down a proper job. Oh, wait. Remember who this person is (allegedly) employed by!

 

Obviously it would be a bit daft to post details of exactly what they've done but once I'd stopped spitting feathers I started celebrating! Letter before action sent today!

[DragonFly1967]

I think I can guess what the silly sods have gone and done

[reallymadwoman]

It is extremely helpful when certain parties start digging their own hole and save me the trouble.

[ericsbrother]

If they are dumb enough to go the whole hog spend the £25 on a counterclaim for harassment so they cant wriggle off the hook.

[reallymadwoman]

It won't be just harassment, there's also the claims for nuisance and negligence.